Based on the mass protests, the despicable conduct during the confirmation hearings, and the shameful smear campaign waged against Judge Kavanaugh, it is safe to say progressives are outraged that President Trump has so far placed two Justices on the Supreme Court.  The framers of the Constitution and those who ratified it would be completely perplexed by this level of outrage.  They would be unable to grasp why the nomination of an individual to such a relatively insignificant office would cause so much angst to so many.  According to the Constitution it is a rather insignificant office.  Here is how Alexander Hamilton described the power of the Supreme Court in relation to the other two branches of the federal government in Federalist 78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

The impact the Supreme Court has on our lives would have remained much further reduced if we had remained faithful to the Constitution because of the limited nature of the federal government created by our most fundamental document.  Here is how James Madison describes that limited nature of the federal government in relation to the State governments:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

All of the social issues that preoccupy progressives and others on the political left so much were never meant to be brought to the federal government level.  The progression that lies at the heart of the progressive philosophy was about bringing those issues to the exclusive purview of the federal government, in direct violation of the actual text of the Constitution.  If the Constitution was still followed the only acceptable ruling by the Supreme Court involving social issues would be to return those cases back to the States.

The federal government is only granted the power to provide for the defense of the entire country, prevent the States from squabbling with each other, promote a sense of general well being for the entire country, and engage in diplomacy as a single country with other nations.  The entire list of powers granted to the federal government are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and in the powers granted to the executive branch in Article 2.  If federal legislature passes laws that delve into areas not covered by those enumerated lists of powers then the Supreme Court has the authority to declare them unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court was never granted the authority to overturn State laws.  It granted itself that power by distorting the 14th Amendment.  The federal government was never granted the power to regulate social issues involving those living in the states for several reasons.

Firstly, they believed the federal government would have to grow incredibly large if it was granted that much authority.  That was proved correct after the federal government ignored the Constitution.

Secondly, it was believed the federal government would abuse that much power and use it to violate the rights of individuals.   That was also proved correct.

It was believed the people living in the States would be able to restrain the much smaller State governments if they abused this power, while it would be impossible to restrain the federal government if it abused those powers.  This was proved correct on so many levels.

The United States is a large country, with a diverse population, composed of individuals with very different religious and moral beliefs.  Many have different beliefs on social issues than others.   The framers of the Constitution believed some individuals living in the States would chose to live there based on the social issues embraced by the individual State governments.  With each State embracing different social issues people could find a home in a State that matched their beliefs.  Now the federal government forces certain beliefs regarding social issues onto every individual.  That is tyranny.

Social issues generate powerful emotions in individuals.  It was believed that preventing these social issues from reaching the federal government level would result in a much more tranquil nation.

If the Supreme Court sent these contentious social issues back to the States where they belong while dealing with dull technical issues pertaining solely to the limited number of enumerated powers, would the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice generate so much anger and hysteria?

This past Tuesday marked 231st anniversary of the signing of the Constitution.  Every year this date should be celebrated by everyone because of the most remarkable nature of that document, which was responsible for this country becoming the freest and wealthiest that ever existed.  Instead the Constitution is held in such ill regard by so many simply because of the indoctrination they received in college, high school, the media, and from friends.  The most common insult hurled at the Constitution is that it is a racist document with the Three-Fifths Compromise as the most damning evidence.  Frederick Douglass debunked that claim back in 1860 when he gave this speech before the Glasgow Emancipation Society.

In this quote he states the purpose of his speech was to refute the false claim that the Constitution is a proslavery document:

The very eloquent lecturer at the City Hall doubtless felt some embarrassment from the fact that he had literally to give the Constitution a pro-slavery interpretation; because upon its face it of itself conveys no such meaning, but a very opposite meaning. He thus sums up what he calls the slaveholding provisions of the Constitution. I quote his own words: — “Article 1, section 9, provides for the continuance of the African slave trade for the 20 years, after the adoption of the Constitution. Art. 4, section 9, provides for the recovery from the other States of fugitive slaves. Art. 1, section 2, gives the slave States a representation of the three-fifths of all the slave population; and Art. 1, section 8, requires the President to use the military, naval, ordnance, and militia resources of the entire country for the suppression of slave insurrection, in the same manner as he would employ them to repel invasion.

In this next quote he discredits the claim that the Three-Fifths Compromise is racist.  He notes that it only applies to slaves, not free blacks, and that is was an incentive for freeing slaves.

It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.

Frederick Douglass stated in this quote that the Constitution abolishing the slave trade 20 years after ratification was meant to end slavery. .

Men, at that time, both in England and in America, looked upon the slave trade as the life of slavery. The abolition of the slave trade was supposed to be the certain death of slavery. Cut off the stream, and the pond will dry up, was the common notion at the time.

He also points out that the drafters of the Constitution believed that slavery was a dying institution.  At the time of the drafting of the Constitution slavery was not working economically and was collapsing.  It was the invention of the Cotton Gin that made slavery work economically and extended that despicable institution.  It was not invented until after the ratification of the Constitution.  He notes that abolishing the slave trade would have hastened slavery’s demise.

All regarded slavery as an expiring and doomed system, destined to speedily disappear from the country. But, again, it should be remembered that this very provision, if made to refer to the African slave trade at all, makes the Constitution anti-slavery rather than for slavery; for it says to the slave States, the price you will have to pay for coming into the American Union is, that the slave trade, which you would carry on indefinitely out of the Union, shall be put an end to in twenty years if you come into the Union. Secondly, if it does apply, it expired by its own limitation more than fifty years ago. Thirdly, it is anti-slavery, because it looked to the abolition of slavery rather than to its perpetuity. Fourthly, it showed that the intentions of the framers of the Constitution were good, not bad.

Frederick Douglass answers the claim that the framers of the Constitution wrote a proslavery and racist document that did not extend its benefits and protections to those of color.

But it has been said that Negroes are not included within the benefits sought under this declaration. This is said by the slaveholders in America — it is said by the City Hall orator — but it is not said by the Constitution itself. Its language is “we the people;” not we the white people, not even we the citizens, not we the privileged class, not we the high, not we the low, but we the people; not we the horses, sheep, and swine, and wheel-barrows, but we the people, we the human inhabitants; and, if Negroes are people, they are included in the benefits for which the Constitution of America was ordained and established. But how dare any man who pretends to be a friend to the Negro thus gratuitously concede away what the Negro has a right to claim under the Constitution? Why should such friends invent new arguments to increase the hopelessness of his bondage? This, I undertake to say, as the conclusion of the whole matter, that the constitutionality of slavery can be made out only by disregarding the plain and common-sense reading of the Constitution itself; by discrediting and casting away as worthless the most beneficent rules of legal interpretation; by ruling the Negro outside of these beneficent rules; by claiming that the Constitution does not mean what it says, and that it says what it does not mean; by disregarding the written Constitution, and interpreting it in the light of a secret understanding

The Constitution would not have been completed or ratified without the Three-Fifths Compromise, resulting in either a split into two countries or a break up into many smaller countries.  Would the slaves have fared better?  Frederick Douglass answers that question here:

My argument against the dissolution of the American Union is this: It would place the slave system more exclusively under the control of the slaveholding States, and withdraw it from the power in the Northern States which is opposed to slavery.

Although odious on the surface, you can see from the quote that the Three-Fifths Compromise was in the long run meant to be a positive.

The one great failure of those who wrote United States Constitution was their failure to properly restrain the Supreme Court.  They did not foresee that the highest court in the United States would abandon the Constitution as the ultimate basis for all of the rulings they issue.  The framers of the Constitution did not envision that the members of that body of justices would substitute their own political opinions and biases, which are recorded in Supreme Court Precedent, for the actual text of the Constitution and the plain meaning of that document as understood at the time of ratification.

During his confirmation testimony Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated that he would most likely be a Supreme Court Justice that would rely more on the biased and flawed precedent than one of the great originalists like Scalia. Judge Kavanaugh discussed precedent frequently and in great detail during the confirmation hearings.  Here is what I consider the most telling quote about the topic from the hearings, as quoted in this Breitbart article:

The role of precedent is to ensure stability in the law, which is critically important…It’s also to ensure predictability of the law. People who order their affairs around judicial decisions, need to know that the law is predictable.  Whether you’re an individual or business or worker, you need to have predictability, People rely on the decisions of the courts, so reliance interests are critically important to consider … so that people can rely on the decisions.

Precedent also reinforces the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. The people need to know in this country that the judges are independent, and we’re not making decisions based on policy views. Part of that is to understand we’re following a system of precedent … the court, every time someone [new] gets on [the Court], it’s not just bouncing around to do what think is best. It’s what’s the precedent of the Supreme Court is always part of the analysis, an important part.

For 12 years, I’ve been applying precedent of the Supreme Court and of my court. Every day for 12 years, I haven’t been getting up saying, “How can I rewrite the law?” I’ve been getting up for 12 years every day, saying, “Okay, how can I apply this Fourth Amendment precedent to this fact pattern that comes before me?” So precedent is the foundation of our system. It’s part of the stability. It’s ensuring predictability. And it’s just foundational to the Constitution, as Article III [of the Constitution] and Federalist 78 made clear.

It is clear from this quote that Judge Kavanaugh believes that Supreme Court precedent is the bedrock of our constitutional republic.  Is he correct about that?  Let’s consult Federalist 78 which was written by Alexander Hamilton.

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute…

But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

From this quote it is obvious that the Constitution itself is the foundation of our legal system not the opinions offered by the Justices when they overturn a law.  To be fair to Judge Kavanaugh precedent is mentioned in that Federalist Paper.  Here is the passage:

There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.

Would Alexander Hamilton consider precedent that constantly disregards the actual text of the Constitution and plain meaning as worthy bedrock?  I do not believe he would.  The Supreme Court has erred far too often when reaching decisions and precedents are nothing more than a voluminous record of these failures.  Also the precedents mentioned by Hamilton were never meant to be granted the full force of law, as it is now.  They were just a guide consisting of opinions

James Madison stated quite clearly what the true foundation of constitutional understanding is when he wrote this in a letter from James Madison to Thomas Ritchie

As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Institutions, & as a source perhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses.

Despite his potential over reliance on precedent I believe Judge Kavanaugh will be an adequate Supreme Court Justice.  I believe he will be another Justice in the mold of Justice Roberts rather that a true originalist giant such as Scalia, Gorsuch, and Thomas.  I believe he is infinitely better than anyone Hillary Clinton would have nominated and considerably better than Justice Kennedy.  Hopefully President Trump does better with his next pick,

The Supreme Court’s tortured justification for their ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is further proof that the Supreme Court completely abandoned the Constitution a great many decades ago.  In this earlier article I explained in detail how the Supreme Court should have ruled and why.  With this current article I was going to critique the ruling but Tech Knight beat me to the punch with his excellent article.  Instead I decided to do this particular article about the systematic failures of the Supreme Court, and propose solutions.  Actually they are not original solutions that I will propose.  The solutions originated with Thomas Jefferson and the anti=federalists.

From the very beginning, the justices of the Supreme substituted their own political opinions for the actual text and meaning of the Constitution. Over the past few decades this has gotten fare worse.  What very few know is that Supreme Court Justices substituting their own political beliefs for the meaning of the Constitution is one of the crimes covered by High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which is the grounds for impeaching a justice under the Constitution.  That was the case under English Common Law, which was the blueprint for our legal system.   Impeaching a Justice for this crime was only attempted once.  It happened very shortly after the Constitution was ratified, and it failed.  We should make it clear to our elected officials that this needs to be attempted again, and often.

In Marbury vs. Madison, way back in 1803, the Supreme Court granted itself sole jurisdiction in ruling on the constitutionality of federal laws.  The power to determine the constitutionally of federal laws is inferred in Article 3 of the Constitution, but it is never granted exclusively to Supreme Court.  In the Kentucky Resolutions Thomas Jefferson declares quite emphatically that the States have not only the power, but the duty, to declare federal laws and Supreme Court rulings null and void if the violate the Constitution.  James Madison echoed Jefferson on this point when he wrote the Virginia Resolutions.  The States need to step in immediately and restrain the out of control Supreme Court by nullifying all decisions that violate the plain meaning of the Constitution.

About a hundred years ago the Supreme Court began overturning States laws.  Their justification was the 14th Amendment.  That amendment was written only to end the harmful practices of Southern States during reconstruction.  The 14th Amendment actually forbids the Supreme Court from enforcing the provisions of that amendment.  This was because of the Dred Scott case.  The power to enforce the 14th Amendment was granted to the federal government through the formal legislative process.  The States need to tell the Supreme Court to stuff it when it tries to overturn State Laws.

Starting in the 1920s the Supreme Court began to “incorporate” the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level.  They accomplished this by distorting the 14th Amendment.  In this article I discussed the erroneous nature of the doctrine of incorporation.  Nullification of Supreme Court decisions that employ this phony doctrine is the best solution.

Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalist pointed out that the Supreme Court was never properly restrained by the Constitution, and they proposed amendments to rectify this.  Term limits and a streamlined impeachment process that clearly states that substituting your own political beliefs is grounds for impeachment would be effective remedies.

The Supreme Court continues to run amok because so few of us truly understand the original meaning of the Constitution.  Our entire educational system propagates this dangerous notion of a living constitution, and completely distorts the original meaning, instead spreading modern progressive myths.  This needs to be corrected and the original meaning must be restored if we want to return this country to a free country, where individual rights and freedoms exist for everyone.

If the Supreme Court still followed the letter and the spirit of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution there is only one possible decision they could reach in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  Because this case involves freedom of speech and freedom of religion they would have to rule that they have no jurisdiction over this case.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights is specifically to restrain the federal government from involving itself in any in matters involving rights protected by the Bill of Rights.   The framers of the Constitution believed if the federal government had jurisdiction over the Bill of Rights they would ultimately abuse this power and strip us of our rights.

The states alone have jurisdiction over God-given Natural Rights.  The Bill of Rights of the Unites Sates does not apply to the states.  The states have their own bills of rights to protect the rights of those living in the states.  I know this may seem controversial to a great many readers of this article.  That is only because the true meaning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution has been distorted by so many institutions of this country.

Academia, the federal government, and the media are responsible for advancing these distortions.  They only preach the modern belief that the Supreme Court can overrule the Sates on cases involving the Bill of Rights.  There is no proof of this located anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution, the text of the Bill of Rights, or the transcripts of the writing and ratification of those documents.  There is abundant evidence supporting my claim that the Bill of Rights prevents the Supreme Court from ruling on cases involving the Bill of Rights.  In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions, in 1798.  The full text has been reproduced here.  Resolution 3 is proof that the Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from interfering with rights protected by the Bill of Rights and prohibits the Supreme Court from ruling in cases involving those rights.

Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.

During the ratification of the United States Constitution there were numerous calls for a Bill of Rights that would protect our most important rights by preventing the federal government from interfering with them.  There were few, if any, calls for additions to the US Constitution that would restrain the states in any way.  During the writing of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives seventeen amendments were written.  Sixteen of the amendments applied to the federal government alone.  The seventeenth amendment, written by James Madison, did specifically apply to the states.  Here is the debate involving that amendment, which took place on August 17, 1789

Article 1, section 10, between the first and second paragraph, insert “no State shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.”

Mr. Tucker.–This is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of the constitutions of particular States. It will be much better, I apprehend, to leave the State Governments to themselves, and not to interfere with them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too much. I therefore move, sir, to strike out these words…

This transposition being agreed to, and Mr. Tucker’s motion being rejected, the clause was adopted.

This amendment was one of seventeen passes by the House of Representatives.  Here is the list.  That amendment was not passed by the Senate.  Here is the transcript of the joint resolution of the Bill of Rights that passed both houses.  It does not include the amendment that applied to the states.  It was also missing from the Bill of Rights that was ratified.

I know the fact that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states distresses a lot of people because they believe the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution alone grants all rights to every single individual in this country.  That is untrue because all rights are granted to us by God.  The Bill of Rights only protects our rights by preventing the federal government from interfering with them in any way.  Every state has a bill of rights to protect the rights of those living in the states.  The people of the states are the ultimate defense against the states encroaching on their rights.  This is far better than leaving these monumental decisions in the hands of nine unelected individuals, who are essentially appointed to the Supreme Court for life.  The Constitution created a bottom up government not a top down government.

The Supreme Court, the rest of the federal government, and a great many individuals have been operating under the delusion that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the States.  I discuss this at length in this article,

It is wrong that the state of Colorado is forcing individuals to violate their right of conscience, which is one of the most important God-given Natural Rights.  It would be a far greater wrong if the Supreme Court stripped the right of conscience from every individual in this country by ruling incorrectly on this case.  That is why the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never granted the Federal government jurisdiction over our rights

Before answering that question, it is essential to define exactly what rights are.  The only truly valid rights are God-given Natural Rights.  Thomas Jefferson articulated  the most accurate definition of a God-given Natural Right when he stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

These rights are granted to every single individual directly by God.  George Mason echoed these sentiments when he wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in  1776

SECTION I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Liberty is second only to life when it comes to importance.  Here is how Thomas Jefferson described liberty in a letter to Isaac Tiffany

…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual

I have always defined liberty as the freedom to do as you wish as long as you do not hurt others or interfere with the rights of others.  It is freedom with the responsibility to not harm others or infringe on the rights of others.  If someone harms another individual or interferes with the rights of another individual then government has the duty and moral obligation to step in, restrain, and punish the individual that caused the harm.   Governments at all levels must leave individuals alone if they do not hurt others.  A large percentage of the founding fathers of this nation believed the only legitimate functions of government are protecting the safety, property, and rights of individuals living in this country.  Forcing individuals to purchase health insurance and interfering in the healthcare marketplace through onerous regulations violates the liberty of individuals and businesses.

The freedom to acquire property, hold on to property, and use property as you wish, are also essential God-given Natural rights.  Income and wealth are both forms of property. The pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence refers to acquiring,  holding, and using property.  If a government body seizes an individual’s property, or income, and redistributes it to another person, that is a violation of a God-given natural right.

Here is what John Locke, the primary influence for all of the framers of the Constitution, had to say on this subject in his Second Treatise on Government:

the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their own consent; without this they have no property at all.

John Adams agreed.  Here is what he had to say on this subject in “Defense of the Constitutions of of the Government of the United States:

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence

Redistribution of wealth for charity and entitlements violates the United States Constitution.  Here are three quotes that proves this:

James Madison Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

James Madison Speech before Congress 1794

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

Thomas Jefferson 1st Inaugural Address

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government,

The debate whether healthcare is a right or not first took center stage in this country back in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt first proposed national health care during his run as president for the progressive party.  It was revived by President Truman in 1945 when he proposed national health insurance.  President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, establishing healthcare as an entitlement that is provided by the Federal Government.  Ben Shapiro discusses this deeply flawed notion that healthcare is a right in this National Review Article.  Here are the most important passages from this article:

Morally, you have no right to demand medical care of me. I may recognize your necessity and offer charity; my friends and I may choose to band together and fund your medical care. But your necessity does not change the basic math: Medical care is a service and a good provided by a third party. No matter how much I need bread, I do not have a right to steal your wallet or hold up the local bakery to obtain it.

Because medical care is a commodity, and treating it otherwise is foolhardy. To make a commodity cheaper and better, two elements are necessary: profit incentive and freedom of labor. The government destroys both of these elements in the health-care industry. It decides medical reimbursement rates for millions of Americans, particularly poor Americans; this, in turn, creates an incentive for doctors not to take government-sponsored health insurance. It regulates how doctors deal with patients, the sorts of training doctors must undergo, and the sorts of insurance they must maintain; all of this convinces fewer Americans to become doctors. Undersupply of doctors generally and of doctors who will accept insurance specifically, along with overdemand stimulated by government-driven health-insurance coverage, leads to mass shortages.

This article by the Mises institute chronicles the disastrous effects making healthcare a right has had on the cost of healthcare in the United States and the problems caused by this deeply flawed thinking.

Benjamin Weingarten proposes a solution to our healthcare crisis in this Conservative Review Article

If government extricated itself from the system, we would see innovation and falling prices. One can imagine any number of solutions that the market would provide, including one in which people are able to purchase cheap catastrophic insurance and only pay for the medical care they need. They could shop for procedures from menus with transparent pricing. Health care would look more like The Cheesecake Factory than the Soviet supermarket.

For those who could still not afford sufficient medical care in a system of greater options and cheaper pricing, the private sector, faith and community-based institutions, and, if need be, a small and stringently managed government safety net would pick up the slack.

If a government safety net is used it would have to be administered by the States because the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from engaging in any entitlements.

My solution to the healthcare crises is to get the federal government out of healthcare completely and let each state come up with their own unique solution.

I firmly believe that abortion is murder.  It is murder of the most helpless and innocent.  I also believe that life begins at conception.  At the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution every State treated abortion as murder, relying on English Common law, rather than a formal State law.  Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution nor is it defined as a crime.  That is of no significance when it comes to allowing the States to criminalize abortion.  Murder is not defined in the Constitution nor is a punishment prescribed, yet murder is illegal in all 50 States.  The only crimes defined by the US Constitution are treason, counterfeiting, piracy and felonies committed on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, and tax evasion.  These are the only crimes the federal government is authorized to punish by the Constitution.  All other crimes remain the exclusive constitutional domain of the States.  This was done to prevent the federal government from growing large enough to be a threat to the sovereignty of the States.  If there were more federal crimes then the federal government would need a federal police force, federal prisons, and a very large federal court system.  Unfortunately the federal government has ignored the Constitution and seized so much government functions from the States that it now has all of this.  The federal government now dwarfs the States and has become a direct threat to the sovereignty of the States.

It is wrong to say that abortion is a states’ rights issue.  It is more accurate to describe abortion as one of the vast majority of potential crimes that States have the authority to define and prescribe punishment, while the federal government does not.  Here is how James Madison described the relationship between State and federal government when he wrote Federalist paper number 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

This principle, which is called federalism, is enshrined in the 10th Amendment.  The federal government is granted only a very limited number of government powers which are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.  The States are denied an even more limited number of powers which are also clearly spelled out.  All remaining powers are retained by the States or the people.  The power to define crimes such as murder is not granted to the federal government nor is it denied to the States; therefore it remains with the States.  The same holds true for the power to outlaw abortion and other similar practices.   Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion for Roe v Wade violated the principle of federalism and the 10th Amendment.   Here are two excerpts from the opinion which reveal the twisted logic used by Justice Blackmun.

The principal thrust of appellant’s attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

According to Justice Blackmun, the Supreme Court can overrule the States on abortion because the due process clause of the 14th Amendment incorporated every single right included in the Bill of Rights down to the States.  This would shock those that wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment.  The Bill of Rights never extended to the States, each State has its own Bill of Rights.  The 14th Amendment due process clause is an exact duplicate of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.  It extended the protection from only that one clause of the Bill of Rights down to the State level.  Not much was written about the due process clause when the Bill of Rights was written because this concept was universally understood.  It dates back to the Manga Carta and was an integral part of English Common Law.  Here is what William Blackstone had to say when he wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England

The law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.

The due process clause prevents the government from taking away your freedom, in other words, locking you up, without going through a formal legal procedure.  It was meant to ensure everyone has a fair trial, not allow abortions.  The writers of the 14th Amendment never intended that this Amendment would allow the Supreme Court to overturn State laws preventing abortion.  All 36 States outlawed abortion before this amendment was ratified in 1868.  It was not until 1973 that Justice Blackmun used this amendment to overturn a Texas law.

Every State has a moral obligation to criminalize abortion because no one has a right to commit murder.  Every individual is endowed by God with inalienable rights at conception.  The most important of these rights are life and liberty.  Abortion steals the life of the unborn child and robs it of a life time of deciding for itself.  Liberty is the freedom to do what you want as long as you do not hurt others and do not interfere with the rights of others.  Because abortion violates both principles, no one has a right to an abortion.  President Trump needs to nominate a Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe v Wade and we need to work to make sure abortion is outlawed in every State.